Friday, July 31, 2009

Since 1987, the volume of transactions on FEDWIRE have consistently exceeded the volume of transactions on CHIPS. This is not necessarily unexpected. FEDWIRE handles, according to the Comptroller's Handbook one-third of its volume as federal funds transactions and one-fourth of its activities as securities transactions. Another significant source of transfers are those between Federal Reserve Banks, which would naturally include certain mortgage funds. Naturally, the volume of these transactions probably should be higher. On the other hand, CHIPS primarily deals with foreign-exchange transactions (nearly 1/2 of the dollar value. Another 1/3 of the dollar value is Eurodollar placements.

From 1987 until 1998, the amount of money transferred via Chips exceeded that on Fedwire by a maximum of 28.51% difference in 1994. Beginning in 1995, however, the amount of money transferred on Fedwire began inching closer to that on Chips, and in 1998 exceeded the amount of money transferred on Chips. After 1998, the amount of money transferred on Fedwire has exponentially grown reaching a high in 2008 of a 32.61% differential; the only two years in which the growth pattern was not consistent was 2006 and 2007, and even then, the differentials were the third highest differential (2006) and the seventh highest (2007) of the years between 1988-2008.

As we look at the numbers, I can't help but notice the date similarities to the current economic crisis. For example, consider the following graph provided by Planet Money on the economic crisis charting debt from 1999-2008:

From 2000 to 2003, government borrowing steadily rose, followed by a short decline through 2008, when it suddenly spiked. During that same period, Business lending acted inversely: declining from 2000 to 2003; rising from 2003 to 2007; and suddenly nose-diving in 2008. In fact, in their post titled Charting Debt, the planet money guys point out that early in 2008, Americans simply stopped borrowing.

Between 2004 and 2007, we see a drastic drop in inflation. However, beginning again in 2008 and through 2009, we see a drastic rise.

This is what I am wondering. Can we make conclusions about the future of our economy by the way we transfer money now. That is, are the types of transactions reflected on Fedwire and Chips the types of transactions that give us a barometer of the economy. Moreover, is there a healthy balance of reciprocal relationship between the two -- does a substantial amount of transference on one wire service lead to high chances of inflation and higher government spending, with lower consumer activity. A few unknowns in this quest:

1. Are there funds that in certain years appear on Chips that in the last few years have appeared on Fedwire because of the type of transaction. One category of these transactions might be if foreign investment shifted from currency exchange to securities. If so, this might suggest that the way we invest foreign money does matter for the way the economy functions.

2. Are there institutional issues that have resulted in the changes and can we segregate the institutional issues from the non-institutional issues in the rise and drop of value transactions between the two wire services. For example, we know that the institutional controls for lending were significantly more lax between 2000 and 2007. This might explain a high proportion of funds on Fedwire during that period of time.

I am curious for other thoughts -- institutional or economic that might show a correlation between the current economy and the future economy.

Monday, July 27, 2009

Both domestically and internationally, for both well-known businesses and anonymous consumers, world events lately have thrust issues of debt, creditor rights, and debtor protection into the spotlight. The field of debtor-creditor scholarship has perhaps never been as fertile as it is today. Its future will ultimately become the responsibility of those having entered the academy during this most robust period. This year’s program is designed to highlight the contributions of those who have just begun to toil in this field, to reveal for the section the newest ideas from recent newcomers, to give these developing scholars an opportunity to present their thoughts and receive feedback in a friendly and receptive forum, and to give more experienced section members a chance to mold and inspire these developing producers—and the future of our section—with constructive questions and comments.

The Section on Creditors’ and Debtors’ Rights thus issues a call for papers on the topic of debtor-creditor scholarship, most broadly understood, for presentation at the AALS Annual Meeting in New Orleans in January 2010. Proposals are welcome from a wide array of perspectives with a connection to creditors’ rights and debtor protection. Proposals may be in any stage of production, from early-stage idea to mid-stage working draft to polished paper, though work that will not be published by January 2010 will be strongly preferred. The section does not plan to publish the papers in a symposium, so presenters are free to seek publication elsewhere. Strong preference will be given to proposals from those who will not yet have been awarded tenure by January 2010 and to those whose work is not already well known within the section. We would anticipate three presentations of 15-20 minutes, each followed by 10-15 minutes of questions and comments from the audience. The Section’s brief business meeting will conclude the program.

Deadline for submission is Monday, August 31, 2009. Please email proposals to section chair, Jason Kilborn, at jkilborn-at-jmls-dot-edu. Selections will be made by late September by the Executive Committee of the Section (chair Jason Kilborn, chair-elect Katie Porter, secretary/treasurer Rafael Pardo, executive committee members Michelle Arnopol Cecil and Alan White, and immediate past chair Jean Braucher). Pursuant to AALS policy, presenters will have to cover their own travel expenses and registration fee for the annual meeting (typically with support from their home institutions), as the Section is prohibited from reimbursing for such expenses.

Maureen O’Rourke, the Associate Reporter on the Principles of the Law of Software Contracts, and I are posting the following to acquaint readers with the Principles and also to respond to some criticism of one section of the Principles that creates, under certain circumstances, an implied warranty of no known material hidden defects in the software.

On May 19, the membership of the American Law Institute unanimously approved the final draft of the Principles of the Law of Software Contracts. As the Introduction to the project states, the Principles “seek to clarify and unify the law of software transactions.” The Principles address issues including contract formation, the relationship between federal intellectual property law and private contracts governed by state law, the enforcement of contract terms governing quality and remedies, the meaning of breach, indemnification against infringement, automated disablement, and contract interpretation.

The Introduction to the Principles explains further that “[b]ecause of its burgeoning importance, perhaps no other commercial subject matter is in greater need of harmonization and clarification. . . . [T]he law governing the transfer of hard goods is inadequate to govern software transactions because, unlike hard goods, software is characterized by novel speed, copying, and storage capabilities, and new inspection, monitoring, and quality challenges.” Many of the rules of Article 2 of the UCC therefore apply poorly to software transactions or not at all, and the Principles are intended to fill the void.

The Principles are not “law,” of course, unless a court adopts a provision. Courts can also apply the Principles as a “gloss” on the common law, UCC Article 2, or other statutes. Nor do the Principles attempt to set forth the law for all aspects of a transaction, but instead rely on sources external to the Principles in many areas.

The Principles apply to agreements for the transfer of software or access to software for a consideration, i.e., software contracts. These include licenses, sales, leases, and access agreements. The project does not apply to the exchange of digital media or digital databases. It applies a predominant purpose test to determine applicability to transactions involving embedded software or software combined in one transfer with digital media, digital databases, and/or services.

We are the Reporter and Associate Reporter of the software principles. We have been greatly aided by our advisors, consultative group members, ALI Council members, liaisons from the National Commissioners on Uniform State Law, Business Software Alliance, and the American Bar Association, and many additional lawyers from industry and other groups who, over the last five and one-half years, have met with us, talked with us on the phone, and exchanged e-mails with us. We believe the project moved along smoothly largely because of the efforts of all of these groups and individuals.

Nevertheless, in the two weeks leading up to approval in May, we received communications from a few software providers evidencing concern largely with one section of the Principles. Section 3.05(b) creates a non-excludable implied warranty that the software “contains no material hidden defects of which the transferor was aware at the time of the transfer.” The section only applies if the transferor receives “money or a right to payment of a monetary obligation in exchange for the software.” Because the section may be the most controversial provision, we devote the rest of this post to the issue.

Despite concerns that section 3.05(b) creates “new law,” it simply memorializes contract law’s disclosure duties and tort’s fraudulent concealment law. The section makes clear that these rules apply to software transfers in order to allocate the risk to the party best able to accommodate or avoid the costs of materially defective software. Obviously this is the transferor in situations where only it knows of the material defect and the transferee cannot protect itself. The section requires that the transferor knows of the defect at the time of the transfer (negligence in not knowing is not enough to trigger liability), the defect is material, and it is hidden.

A few software providers have concerns that the concepts of “hidden,” and “material defect” are obtuse and will “increase litigation” or require a flood of “detailed notices” to prospective users. These concepts, however, are hardly unknown to the law. A comment to section 3.05(b) says that a “hidden” defect occurs if the “defect would not surface upon any testing that was or should have been performed by the transferee.” This is nothing new. See, e.g., UCC 2-316(3)(b) (“there is no implied warranty with regard to defects which an examination ought in the circumstances to have revealed to [the buyer]”).

A few software providers also worry about the meaning of “material defect.” The comments to section 3.05(b) point out that the section simply captures the principle of material breach: Does the defect mean that the transferee will not get substantially what it bargained for and reasonably expected under the contract? The criticism that “materiality” is too vague, if accurate, would mean that contract law would have to abolish its material breach doctrine too.

Putting together the requirements of actual knowledge of the defect at the time of the transfer, that the transferee reasonably does not know of the defect, and that the defect constitutes a material breach means that a transferor would be insulated from liability in situations identified by the concerned software providers as problematic. These include where the transferor has received reports of problems but reasonably has not had time to investigate them, where the transferee’s problems are caused by uses of which the transferor is unaware, where the transferor learns of problems only after the transfer, and where the problems are benign or require reasonable workarounds to achieve functionality. The best example of when section 3.05(b) would apply is, as comment b to the section says, where the transferor already knows at the time of the transfer that the software will require “major workarounds . . . and cause[] long periods of downtime or never [will] achieve[] promised functionality,” the transferee cannot discover this for itself, and the transferor chooses not to disclose the defect.

As we have already said, the section simply memorializes existing law. Under the common law, a contracting party must disclose material facts if they are under the party’s control and the other party cannot reasonably be expected to learn of the facts. Failure to disclose in such circumstances may amount to a representation that the facts do not exist and may be fraudulent. See, e.g., Shapiro v. Sutherland, 76 Cal. Rptr. 2d 101, 107 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998) (“Generally, where one party to a transaction has sole knowledge or access to material facts and knows that such facts are not known or reasonably discoverable by the other party, then a duty to disclose exists.”); Hill v. Jones, 725 P.2d 1115, 1118-19 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986) (“[U]nder certain circumstances there may be a ‘duty to speak.’ . . . [N]ondisclosure of a fact known to one party may be equivalent to the assertion that the fact does not exist. . . . Thus, nondisclosure may be equated with and given the same legal effect as fraud and misrepresentation.”). The Restatement (Second) of Contracts section 161(b) states that “[a] person’s non-disclosure of a fact known to him is equivalent to an assertion that the fact does not exist . . . where he knows that disclosure of the fact would correct a mistake of the other party as to a basic assumption on which that party is making the contract and if non-disclosure of the fact amounts to a failure to act in good faith and in accordance with reasonable standards of fair dealing.” Section 161, comment d of the Restatement (Second) adds “In many situations, if one party knows that the other is mistaken as to a basic assumption, he is expected to disclose the fact that would correct the mistake. A seller of real or personal property is, for example, ordinarily expected to disclose a known latent defect of quality or title that is of such character as would probably prevent the buyer from buying at the contract price.”

One concern of a commentator is that fraudulent concealment is a tort, implying that it has no place in the Principles. But the principle appears prominently in the Restatement (Second) of Contracts section 161. And why not memorialize a principle that discourages a party in a contract setting from hiding material facts that the other party reasonably does not know? The commentator notes that fraudulent concealment requires intent to deceive, but wouldn’t that be the usual inference if a transferor licenses software it knows is materially defective and knows the transferee cannot discover it?

A few organizations also are concerned that section 3.05(b) cannot be disclaimed. But there are plenty of cases that do not allow a party to contract away liability for concealment. One critic wonders why a statement such as “I am not giving any assurances about there being no defects in this software,” should not insulate a transferor from liability. A reasonable licensee, assuming the good faith of the licensor, would believe that this licensor does not intend to make any express warranties or implied warranties of merchantability or fitness, not that the licensor knows that the software is materially defective so that the software will be largely worthless to the licensee. A transferor playing this game is surely in bad faith and, frankly, engaging in reprehensible conduct. But there is a way to ensure no liability under this section, namely to disclose material hidden defects. In effect, disclosure is the disclaimer.

Bob Hillman and Maureen O’RourkeJune 2, 2009

The Concurring Opinions post -- which Bob asked me to re-post, with the blessings of the Concurring Opinions folks -- has provoked several comments and has been the subject of a follow-up post by David Hoffman, one of Concurring Opinions's regular contributors. Dave's post has generated its own comments. While we here at Commercial Law might have a vested interest in generating site traffic, it may be more efficient to funnel feedback through a single conduit. Because Concurring Opinions got the ball rolling, feel free to comment, or to respond to existing comments, there.